BtotheH :

Sure, but with a reservation.

The main danger is obvious: oppression. Without any sort of competition, those with power can do whatever they would like with comparatively little resistance.

But there are so many benefits. Potential for efficiency is through the roof. Military conflicts would nearly disappear. Economic boosts because of unrestricted trade would be enormous.

So, the reservation is this: the government form must naturally resist oppression. The best way to do this is limit the power of the federal government and instead give power to regional provinces. The federal government would manage inter-provincial conflicts and issues that affected the globe, but the regional government would interact with citizens and provide the more specialized system that best suits the area and it's populace.

Governing large areas doesn't work with just one government even if they have locals in each area (government don't work in general). Any huge empire could tell you that. They might be able to keep it together for some time but sooner or later someone will plant the seeds of revolution. This has happened though out history and will happen every single time, the Roman empire is the best example I can give you.

GenesisJunkie :

Yes, governments fail. Large governments don't fail faster. Small kingdoms rise and fall just as quick. Rome was around for hundreds of years and, while it kept shrinking in power, never actually died until the Kingdom of Sardinia took it over in the late 1800s.

The Holy Roman Empire (a super big Germany from 900-1800 A.D.) stayed for a long time as a monarchical confederacy.

Great Britain reached it's height in the 1800s and in 1922 had over 450 million people within it's boarders, and it's not dead.

Sure, governments don't stay golden forever, but that doesn't mean we don't strive for perfection.

Sure, if a NWO does come to power, they will have firm rule over the earth...... for a while. You see, many tribes or people wouldn't like the NWO, so they'd revolt. This would eventually lead to the end of the empire. Just look at Rome. Too much hubris, too many opponents to their rule, it all lead to a violent fall.

BtotheH : i only know of the NWO as 
Hollywood Hogan Kevin Nash Scott Hall Ted DiBiase sr. The Giant (The Big Show) VincentSyxx (X-Pac) Buff Bagwell Miss Elizabeth nWo "Sting" Curt Hennig KonnanNick Patrick Dennis RodmanV.K.Wallstreet Big Bubba Rogers Rick RudeRandy Savage Scott Steiner Scott Norton Alejandro Villalta Brian AdamsThe  Disciple The Great MutaMasahiro ChonoHiroyoshi Tenzan Satoshi Kojima Hiro Saito AKIRA Tatsutoshi Goto Michiyoshi Ohara Big Bubba Scott Norton Michael WallstreetLouie Spicolli Big Titan
Hollywood HoganThe GiantEric Bischoff Vincent Scott Norton Buff Bagwell Miss Elizabeth Dennis Rodman Scott SteinerBrian AdamsDusty RhodesThe Disciple Stevie Ray Horace Hogan Scott Hall Curt Hennig Rick Rude Bret Hart

Txgangsta : large governments don't fall faster but they fall harder. One man/government controlling the world doesn't work, it never has and it never will. Many cultures and religions say the same thing. Christians believe that a new world order, one world government will be implemented by the Anti Christ. The NWO is the face of fascism. It grows from imperialism, nationalism, and blind allegiance.

GenesisJunkie :

Again, the empire of Great Britain. They didn't fall hard. The US declared independence and the empire still grew more and more powerful. As they started declining, they simply released territories that started becoming less useful and displaying more unrest.

England did not fall hard. In fact, the only reason they ever fell out of "superpower" status was because of WWI and WWII, which was not an internal problem. A NWO could only have internal problems because there is nothing external.

And yes, some Christians believe that the Anti-Christ will show up and create a NWO with one currency. These same Christians also are the ones that do not realize that the word "antichrist" never appears in the bible. Instead, the word is "antichrists". Also, this kind of stems from the whole "democracy is the best government system", which is false. Absolute Monarchies are technically Fascist - one leader, all the power. If the leader is immoral, they have gobs of powers to be immoral. But, if the nation hits a horrible economic crisis, such as the Great Depression, a three-branch republic (like the US) takes lots and lots of time to get through the red tape and do anything. From 1933 to 1939, Roosevelt had helped the unemployment move from 25% to 17%. Germany was actually worse off than the US, but the efficiency of fascism allowed Hitler to help moved unemployment from around 30% to nearly 0%, and in shorter time.

The only reason I am not a fascist is because one tyrant can spell doom for 60 million people. Otherwise, fascism is the most efficient of governments. 

Txgangsta : I am in no way trying to defend Democracy or the US. Democracy doesn't work but Fascism is worse. The UK lost alot of its colonies due to revolt. World War II is a good example on how hard it would be to even gain control of the world. Hitler (and Napolian before him) gave it everything he had, killed tons, lost tons of his own people but at the end he died like a dog, not like the god he wanted people to think he was.

One government or ten million governments could never rule you better than you. We are polar opposite when it comes to government styles. I am an Anarchist and you seem like lean more to Dictatorships. I enjoy talking to you though.

Considering the fact I think my government is bigger than it should be, I'd hardly support making it larger. The bigger something becomes, the harder it is to manage.
If size is an indicator then its worth noting then, as far as Europe goes, the smallest nations tend to be the wealthiest.

Txgangsta :
I have to point out some inconsistencys in what you say.
First you say rome was around for a long time. This is true, but when it fell, it fell hard, after it was sacked by the visigoths, it was done. And for a long time before that, it was virtually powerless.
The holy roman empire wasnt german, it occupied most of modern day germany, but since germany had never existed as a state, it wasnt german. Equally the ruler was appointed by the pope. Hence the holy roman empire. It was religion that kept it together as long as it was.
Great britain was at stages:
the united kingdom of Great britain,
the united kingdom of Great britain and Ireland,
and the united kingdom of Great britain and northern ireland (as it is now).
It has changed repeatedly, and it gained its power through conquest.It existed before then and it existed now, but it is completely different now, and is not the dominant nation, so its a pretty different entity.
The fact its still here doesent say anything for global power. Sure the size of a nation at the start doesent guarantee the length of time it endures. But Big or small, all nations that cant please the people will fall apart.
These smaller nations couldnt keep people happy, if they ruled everyone, keeping everyone happy would be even harder. They prospered at the expense of others. Getting everyone to prosper?Never happened before, probably never will.

As for the uk falling hard? We certainly did. We had a massive empire, germany envied us for it, they wanted one. They tried to get one and we were afraid theyd take ours, so we went to war.
Twice.
So did many other nations.
Millions died and our empire collapsed.
We "won" the war damaged, poor, and with massive debts. We had returning soldiers looking for work, destroyed houses and infrastructure, endemic crime because we had focused on the war, years of austerity and rationing even after the war ended, our economy took the better part of 40 years to balance out. Even now, Britain is still damaged from years of mismanagement.
The resentment still runs deep and in the years after entire community's were torn apart.
The fact that now the entire nation is in danger of dissolving only goes to show how hard we fell.
Also, dont interchange between England and the UK, you ought to look up the meaning of each of those titles.
Regardless of the first or second world wars, the empire would fall. We had already promised south africa independence, australia, canada and new zealand had been steadily getting more autonomy.
Did the ww's speed up the fall?Yes. Did they Cause it?No.
As for fascism being efficient, that depends. Look at North korea. Fascism can be efficient, if it has good (as in smart) leaders. Equally it can go the opposite way.

thenumberone :

I actually agree with most of what you say. I'm not a fascist by any means, and I don't mean to say that the world would be better with more government control either.

And sorry for the UK/England mix up. London very literally owned Whales, Scotland, and Ireland (including the southern section) for centuries. It's hard to not mix the terms in my head. England is not the UK is not Great Britain, but I oopsie...

The only part I really have an issue with is here: "Did the ww's speed up the fall?Yes. Did they Cause it?No. "

It's not that I actually disagree with the statement itself; the WWs technically did not cause the collapse. The real cause was lack of management. South Africa, Australia, and Canada could have hypothetically stayed part of the empire if they had felt less like a colony and more like a true part of the nation. Hypothetically because I doubt that there was any real means to manage that, but loyalty to the nation is number one for maintaining unity. The part I disagree with is if you're implying that the wars did not remove the possibility of at least one colony staying with Britain longer.

The big part of my post to GJ was that Britain did not fall hard until those WWs. Britain was probably the greatest super power in the early 1900s, rivaled by France, Germany, and the US, but in the lead in many statistics. Without the war, it would have declined in power, yes, but it would not have fallen hard. The great depression exponentially affected the problems of a far reaching empire, but that empire would not have fallen hard, and that was my point. So now in the NWO imaginary world, if autonomy is desired, it could act much like Britain and simply grant more and more autonomy until full independence is reached.

One government wouldn't work because you have too many ideologies, too many religions, too much difference between people and their politics and what they want and their goals.

If aliens came down and invaded us, we would band together because we're all human and the goal is survival.  That would work.  But without external threats, like alien invasion or something that affects the entire planet, we're going to have local politics, local squabbles, and worldwide squabbles with worldwide politics.

Each group wants different things, values different things, and our culture makes a world government impossible.  If we were all homogenized and the same, it would work.

We're not.  We'll never be.  Size of government isn't as important as the population it covers.  The Roman Empire, the British, even the United States dabbling in ruling the world (Yes, we seem to be trying), aren't going to be successful because we cover too many different cultures with different aims and goals.

Txgangsta :
Thats not actually true, in 1296, england invaded scotland, in 1297, scotland had rebelled and pushed the english forces back, and then counter invading the north of England.
By 1300, England were trying to retake scotland, but due to a lack of success, returned south of the border.
Theu invaded again in 1301 and again in 1302 left. In 1303 they invaded once more and manage to secure the surrender of most of scotlands leaders, with a few significant exceptions.
1306 and scotland had declared its own king, and england had to fight a guerila war from 1307.By 1308 a chunk of scotland was independent again, and by 1309 the parliament was re-established, and most of the terriory regained. By 1312 northern england was also being raided, and ireland had been invaded (then controlled by england) and the scottish kings brother declared king of ireland.
There was hardly a full year where scotland was ruled by england, and only in one very small timeframe.
As for ireland and wales, they were controlled by england for much of their history but they also had several rbellions (especially ireland) and gave vital contributions to the united kingdom, when it was formed from the act of union.


I dont disagree that without the war the colonies would have remained, frankly it probably would have been upwards of a hundred years before the last colony went if we hadnt got into ww2 (and 1).
If we hadnt got into the world wars its quite possible we wouldnt have fallen hard, true. But whats important to remember is that whilst the UK was rich, the people werent. For the longest time, there were multiple families per room, 1 outdoor toilet per house (with no plumbing), horrible jobs like colliery's and factory workers (from the age of about 8), where you're life expectancy was about 32, you were liable to lose a limb, and you got almost no pay.
Without the world war, its very possible that Britain would have been wracked by a civil war, there was a growing support for Bolshevism before the war, because the elite got all the money and the poor got sod all. Again, this aids the idea that big governments make big mistakes. Treating your own people as slaves for example. After the french revolution the UK was terrified that its citizens would rise up, in fact had they not cracked down as hard as they did, it may well have happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_George_Square

I mean here, the uk sent in tanks, and set up machine gun posts, as well as bringing into soldiers from other cities, to try and stop a potential uprising. Nothing distracts people like a good war though.

I don't think a one world government would work. Governments fail all the time. List all of the governments that have been overthrown, changed, or otherwise failed in the past ten years. You would have a pretty decent sized list. The thing about having different governments is if you don't like one, there are others. But if there's only one government? It's do or die. And all governments die sooner or later.